| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"David W. Barnes" |
| Date: |
11 Nov 2004 10:10:09 PM |
| Object: |
Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
.
|
|
| User: "Dave Nalle" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
14 Nov 2004 02:11:28 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message news:<111120042010099348%spam@aol.com>...
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
Sadly neither do the pro-choicers.
Dave
http://www.diablog.us
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
14 Nov 2004 12:43:44 PM |
|
|
Dave Nalle <graball@ccsi.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message news:<111120042010099348%spam@aol.com>...
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
Sadly neither do the pro-choicers.
So far it's only been the anti-choicers who refuse to accept what the
Constitution says.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Nalle" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
16 Nov 2004 08:08:17 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<cn890v$mpb$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Dave Nalle <graball@ccsi.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message news:<111120042010099348%spam@aol.com>...
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
Sadly neither do the pro-choicers.
So far it's only been the anti-choicers who refuse to accept what the
Constitution says.
Actually, there's not a word in the Constitution about abortion one way or
the other. You should read it some time. The right to abortion isn't a
constitutional issue, it's a scientific question of when life begins and when
a baby is a baby and has basic human rights.
Dave
http://www.diablog.us
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
16 Nov 2004 10:17:50 PM |
|
|
Dave Nalle <graball@ccsi.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<cn890v$mpb$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Dave Nalle <graball@ccsi.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message news:<111120042010099348%spam@aol.com>...
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
Sadly neither do the pro-choicers.
So far it's only been the anti-choicers who refuse to accept what the
Constitution says.
Actually, there's not a word in the Constitution about abortion one way or
the other.
Are you stupid? There isn't one word about TV either, and yet the
constitution still protects freedom of the press and freedom of speech
when it comes to television.
The right to abortion isn't a
constitutional issue,
Rights are a consitutional issue.
it's a scientific question of when life begins
That has nothing to do with rights.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Nalle" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
17 Nov 2004 05:51:46 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<cnejdd$oa6$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Dave Nalle <graball@ccsi.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<cn890v$mpb$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Dave Nalle <graball@ccsi.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message news:<111120042010099348%spam@aol.com>...
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
Sadly neither do the pro-choicers.
So far it's only been the anti-choicers who refuse to accept what the
Constitution says.
Actually, there's not a word in the Constitution about abortion one way or
the other.
Are you stupid?
Wow, that's a nice way to treat someone who posts to back you up.
There isn't one word about TV either, and yet the
constitution still protects freedom of the press and freedom of speech
when it comes to television.
Yes, but TV is a sub-set of the press. It's just a different way of
conveying information. Clearly covered under the constitution.
The right to abortion isn't a
constitutional issue,
Rights are a consitutional issue.
Yes, RIGHTS are. No one questions that there's a right to life.
That's why abortion isn't a constitutional issue, because it's
not an argument over whether or not there is a right to life,
but an argument over what defines life, and the constitution
doesn't address scientific issues.
it's a scientific question of when life begins
That has nothing to do with rights.
Bingo. The rights are guaranteed. The question is whether
fetuses qualify for those rights.
Dave
http://www.diablog.us
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
12 Nov 2004 10:12:42 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
Pro-lifers understand little and are anything but pro-life.
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
11 Nov 2004 10:33:34 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
You mean the rule of law? Well, no duh!
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
12 Nov 2004 03:48:55 PM |
|
|
In article <41943D1E.8794CA87@rica.net>, John Popelish
<jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
You mean the rule of law? Well, no duh!
To the Right, the law only applies to the Left. Look at the election
laws.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jsm" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
17 Nov 2004 10:01:13 AM |
|
|
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message news:<41943D1E.8794CA87@rica.net>...
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
You mean the rule of law? Well, no duh!
Before Roe Vs Wade, the "Rule of Law" did not allow the
killing (abortion) of our babies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ouroboros rex" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
17 Nov 2004 10:06:13 AM |
|
|
"jsm" <jsm542@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b971a682.0411170801.6272a40a@posting.google.com...
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:<41943D1E.8794CA87@rica.net>...
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
You mean the rule of law? Well, no duh!
Before Roe Vs Wade, the "Rule of Law" did not allow the
killing (abortion) of our babies.
Of course, it still doesn't. that would be murder, not abortion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
17 Nov 2004 10:11:11 AM |
|
|
"jsm" <jsm542@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b971a682.0411170801.6272a40a@posting.google.com...
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:<41943D1E.8794CA87@rica.net>...
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
You mean the rule of law? Well, no duh!
Before Roe Vs Wade, the "Rule of Law" did not allow the
killing (abortion) of our babies.
"Our" babies? I haven't had an abortion - Have you?
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
17 Nov 2004 10:12:11 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:11:11 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"jsm" <jsm542@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b971a682.0411170801.6272a40a@posting.google.com...
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:<41943D1E.8794CA87@rica.net>...
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
You mean the rule of law? Well, no duh!
Before Roe Vs Wade, the "Rule of Law" did not allow the
killing (abortion) of our babies.
"Our" babies? I haven't had an abortion - Have you?
With an id like jism?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
17 Nov 2004 10:19:11 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:s2ump0d8jk471j1euibs6kd1gu006lteu9@4ax.com...
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 11:11:11 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"jsm" <jsm542@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b971a682.0411170801.6272a40a@posting.google.com...
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:<41943D1E.8794CA87@rica.net>...
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring
his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say
"...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this
state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
You mean the rule of law? Well, no duh!
Before Roe Vs Wade, the "Rule of Law" did not allow the
killing (abortion) of our babies.
"Our" babies? I haven't had an abortion - Have you?
With an id like jism?
SNARK! Good point :)
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Snit" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
17 Nov 2004 10:05:40 AM |
|
|
"jsm" <jsm542@yahoo.com> wrote in post
b971a682.0411170801.6272a40a@posting.google.com on 11/17/04 9:01 AM:
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:<41943D1E.8794CA87@rica.net>...
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
You mean the rule of law? Well, no duh!
Before Roe Vs Wade, the "Rule of Law" did not allow the
killing (abortion) of our babies.
Killing babies is still illegal. Aborting a fetus is not.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
17 Nov 2004 01:13:23 PM |
|
|
(jsm) writes:
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message news:<41943D1E.8794CA87@rica.net>...
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
You mean the rule of law? Well, no duh!
Before Roe Vs Wade, the "Rule of Law" did not allow the
killing (abortion) of our babies.
I guess millions of Californians just imagined their state legalized elective
abortions six years BEFORE RvW. (The "rule of law" did nothing to keep them
from happening prior to that -- and in no case was abortion prosecuted as
murder.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
18 Nov 2004 03:27:49 PM |
|
|
On 17 Nov 2004 08:01:13 -0800, (jsm) wrote:
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message news:<41943D1E.8794CA87@rica.net>...
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
You mean the rule of law? Well, no duh!
Before Roe Vs Wade, the "Rule of Law" did not allow the
killing (abortion) of our babies.
1) fetus' aren't babies, *****.
2) The 'rule of law' didn't allow 'safe' abortions which meant a lot
of ladies died, were rendered sterile, and more because of the
ignorance of assholes like you.
3) The bronze age book of drooling idiocy you assholes thump and
ignore has zero problem with abortion. (The Bible has no legal
standing in the US and this is not a "Christian Nation(tm)).
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
17 Nov 2004 10:02:28 AM |
|
|
On 17 Nov 2004 08:01:13 -0800, (jsm) wrote:
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message news:<41943D1E.8794CA87@rica.net>...
"David W. Barnes" wrote:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
You mean the rule of law? Well, no duh!
Before Roe Vs Wade, the "Rule of Law" did not allow the
killing (abortion) of our babies.
Why do you pretend that abortion is killing of babies?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
13 Nov 2004 08:16:20 AM |
|
|
On 2004-11-12 15:10:09 +1100, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> said:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
No, I find this good. The best the left can do is side with the
pro-lifers and use these policies to create a wedge between the
religious right/pro-life people in the Republican Party by sayin that
the Republicans have let down a sizable portion of their voters and
that these voters should spin off and create their own party with their
own candidate :-)
Ah, the power of wedge politics, and how to ***** up a government and
party in a short space of time; its a hard task, but it can be *VERY*
rewarding if one is persistant :-)
Create a wedge between the religious right and Republicans and watch
that party split apart faster than the legs on a $50 hooker ;-)
Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
13 Nov 2004 09:28:06 AM |
|
|
In article <2vmj9pF2l1ocjU6@uni-berlin.de>, Matty
<kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On 2004-11-12 15:10:09 +1100, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> said:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
No, I find this good. The best the left can do is side with the
pro-lifers and use these policies to create a wedge between the
religious right/pro-life people in the Republican Party by sayin that
the Republicans have let down a sizable portion of their voters and
that these voters should spin off and create their own party with their
own candidate :-)
I didn't say it. The religious right said it. It isn't the "best the
left can do," it is the best the pro-lifers can do.
Ah, the power of wedge politics, and how to ***** up a government and
party in a short space of time; its a hard task, but it can be *VERY*
rewarding if one is persistant :-)
The Republicans sure know that.
Create a wedge between the religious right and Republicans and watch
that party split apart faster than the legs on a $50 hooker ;-)
The real question is why does the Religious Right allow the hate filled
war mongering Republicans (who love to pull the carpet out from under
the poor, contrary to the teachings of Jesus) claim to represent them
when the Religious claim to follow the teachings of God.
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a
rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
13 Nov 2004 10:11:17 AM |
|
|
On 2004-11-14 02:28:06 +1100, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> said:
In article <2vmj9pF2l1ocjU6@uni-berlin.de>, Matty
<kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On 2004-11-12 15:10:09 +1100, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> said:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
No, I find this good. The best the left can do is side with the
pro-lifers and use these policies to create a wedge between the
religious right/pro-life people in the Republican Party by sayin that
the Republicans have let down a sizable portion of their voters and
that these voters should spin off and create their own party with their
own candidate :-)
I didn't say it. The religious right said it. It isn't the "best the
left can do," it is the best the pro-lifers can do.
Ah, the power of wedge politics, and how to ***** up a government and
party in a short space of time; its a hard task, but it can be *VERY*
rewarding if one is persistant :-)
The Republicans sure know that.
Create a wedge between the religious right and Republicans and watch
that party split apart faster than the legs on a $50 hooker ;-)
The real question is why does the Religious Right allow the hate filled
war mongering Republicans (who love to pull the carpet out from under
the poor, contrary to the teachings of Jesus) claim to represent them
when the Religious claim to follow the teachings of God.
True. One thing I can say, atleast the religious right in NZ and many
other countries have the back bone to start their own party, and
actually run an election campaign like everyone else. NZ has the
Christian Coalition, they've yet to win a seat in parliament, and as
such their voices are ignored. If 5% of people voted for them on the
party vote, THEN they might have a legitimate voice, however, since one
has a better chance of sober Irish man on St Patricks day than that
occuring, these religious right are ignored by the media as fringe
lunnies from the nut edge of of the political spectrum.
Btw, Legalise Cannibis for Aoteroa received higher support than the
religious rigth in the NZ elections.
Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
13 Nov 2004 10:20:59 AM |
|
|
In article <2vmq1bF2mh69cU2@uni-berlin.de>, Matty
<kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On 2004-11-14 02:28:06 +1100, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> said:
In article <2vmj9pF2l1ocjU6@uni-berlin.de>, Matty
<kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On 2004-11-12 15:10:09 +1100, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> said:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
No, I find this good. The best the left can do is side with the
pro-lifers and use these policies to create a wedge between the
religious right/pro-life people in the Republican Party by sayin that
the Republicans have let down a sizable portion of their voters and
that these voters should spin off and create their own party with their
own candidate :-)
I didn't say it. The religious right said it. It isn't the "best the
left can do," it is the best the pro-lifers can do.
Ah, the power of wedge politics, and how to ***** up a government and
party in a short space of time; its a hard task, but it can be *VERY*
rewarding if one is persistant :-)
The Republicans sure know that.
Create a wedge between the religious right and Republicans and watch
that party split apart faster than the legs on a $50 hooker ;-)
The real question is why does the Religious Right allow the hate filled
war mongering Republicans (who love to pull the carpet out from under
the poor, contrary to the teachings of Jesus) claim to represent them
when the Religious claim to follow the teachings of God.
True. One thing I can say, atleast the religious right in NZ and many
other countries have the back bone to start their own party, and
actually run an election campaign like everyone else. NZ has the
Christian Coalition, they've yet to win a seat in parliament, and as
such their voices are ignored. If 5% of people voted for them on the
party vote, THEN they might have a legitimate voice, however, since one
has a better chance of sober Irish man on St Patricks day than that
occuring, these religious right are ignored by the media as fringe
lunnies from the nut edge of of the political spectrum.
Btw, Legalise Cannibis for Aoteroa received higher support than the
religious rigth in the NZ elections.
Here the Republican pander to the Religious Right. It seems to work.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krakz" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
14 Nov 2004 02:11:58 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message news:<131120040820594548%spam@aol.com>...
Here the Republican pander to the Religious Right. It seems to work.
Of course it works, if Bush shunned the Christians like Bob Dole and
his dad before him did, he'd have lost also. While Bush isn't 100%
supportive of Christian values, he supports them enough to have won
the popular vote this time. VOTER TURN OUT! Aparently more
Christians voted than fucktard baby killers like the "Pro-Choicers"
<laughable>
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
14 Nov 2004 05:40:46 PM |
|
|
In article <7387521c.0411141211.15ba3413@posting.google.com>, Krakz
<krakz@yahoo.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote in message
news:<131120040820594548%spam@aol.com>...
Here the Republican pander to the Religious Right. It seems to work.
Of course it works, if Bush shunned the Christians like Bob Dole and
his dad before him did, he'd have lost also.
This is the same thinking that drivbes governments in the middle east
except their it is Islam.
While Bush isn't 100%
supportive of Christian values, he supports them enough to have won
the popular vote this time.
I don't think he supports their supposed values at all. He just says
he does. The guy is a convicted criminal. He is a theif. He has
people killed without reason. He is a hate monger. He supports the
rich, which is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
VOTER TURN OUT! Aparently more
Christians voted than fucktard baby killers like the "Pro-Choicers"
<laughable>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
13 Nov 2004 09:42:08 PM |
|
|
On 2004-11-14 03:20:59 +1100, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> said:
In article <2vmq1bF2mh69cU2@uni-berlin.de>, Matty
<kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On 2004-11-14 02:28:06 +1100, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> said:
In article <2vmj9pF2l1ocjU6@uni-berlin.de>, Matty
<kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On 2004-11-12 15:10:09 +1100, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> said:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
No, I find this good. The best the left can do is side with the
pro-lifers and use these policies to create a wedge between the
religious right/pro-life people in the Republican Party by sayin that
the Republicans have let down a sizable portion of their voters and
that these voters should spin off and create their own party with their
own candidate :-)
I didn't say it. The religious right said it. It isn't the "best the
left can do," it is the best the pro-lifers can do.
Ah, the power of wedge politics, and how to ***** up a government and
party in a short space of time; its a hard task, but it can be *VERY*
rewarding if one is persistant :-)
The Republicans sure know that.
Create a wedge between the religious right and Republicans and watch
that party split apart faster than the legs on a $50 hooker ;-)
The real question is why does the Religious Right allow the hate filled
war mongering Republicans (who love to pull the carpet out from under
the poor, contrary to the teachings of Jesus) claim to represent them
when the Religious claim to follow the teachings of God.
True. One thing I can say, atleast the religious right in NZ and many
other countries have the back bone to start their own party, and
actually run an election campaign like everyone else. NZ has the
Christian Coalition, they've yet to win a seat in parliament, and as
such their voices are ignored. If 5% of people voted for them on the
party vote, THEN they might have a legitimate voice, however, since one
has a better chance of sober Irish man on St Patricks day than that
occuring, these religious right are ignored by the media as fringe
lunnies from the nut edge of of the political spectrum.
Btw, Legalise Cannibis for Aoteroa received higher support than the
religious rigth in the NZ elections.
Here the Republican pander to the Religious Right. It seems to work.
Thats unforunate. Atleast the National Party in NZ tries to pander to
the "get off you *****, and get a a job you lazy *****"-saying crowd.
The religious right, something the world could do without.
Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris the Liberal" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
13 Nov 2004 05:23:37 PM |
|
|
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:<2vmj9pF2l1ocjU6@uni-berlin.de>...
On 2004-11-12 15:10:09 +1100, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> said:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
No, I find this good. The best the left can do is side with the
pro-lifers and use these policies to create a wedge between the
religious right/pro-life people in the Republican Party by sayin that
the Republicans have let down a sizable portion of their voters and
that these voters should spin off and create their own party with their
own candidate :-)
Ah, the power of wedge politics, and how to ***** up a government and
party in a short space of time; its a hard task, but it can be *VERY*
rewarding if one is persistant :-)
Create a wedge between the religious right and Republicans and watch
that party split apart faster than the legs on a $50 hooker ;-)
Great Observation. Though my experience with $50 hookers is limited;
I prefer the ones who are free and let me stay all night.
Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
13 Nov 2004 05:36:11 PM |
|
|
Chris the Liberal <Cognitus44@hotmail.com> wrote:
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:<2vmj9pF2l1ocjU6@uni-berlin.de>...
On 2004-11-12 15:10:09 +1100, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> said:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring
his anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel
Alberto Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say
"...it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of
this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the
legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
No, I find this good. The best the left can do is side with the
pro-lifers and use these policies to create a wedge between the
religious right/pro-life people in the Republican Party by sayin that
the Republicans have let down a sizable portion of their voters and
that these voters should spin off and create their own party with
their own candidate :-)
Ah, the power of wedge politics, and how to ***** up a government and
party in a short space of time; its a hard task, but it can be *VERY*
rewarding if one is persistant :-)
Create a wedge between the religious right and Republicans and watch
that party split apart faster than the legs on a $50 hooker ;-)
Great Observation. Though my experience with $50 hookers is
limited;
I prefer the ones who are free and let me stay all night.
If they're free they're not hookers, those are called sluts.
--
"How do I know that? How can I say that? Let me give you a closer look.
Look at the image on the left. On the left is a close-up of one of the
four chemical bunkers. The two arrows indicate the presence of sure
signs that the bunkers are storing chemical munitions."
Remarks to the United Nations Security Council, United Nations
(2/5/2003).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
13 Nov 2004 10:16:48 PM |
|
|
On 2004-11-14 10:23:37 +1100, (Chris the Liberal) said:
Matty <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:<2vmj9pF2l1ocjU6@uni-berlin.de>...
On 2004-11-12 15:10:09 +1100, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> said:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
No, I find this good. The best the left can do is side with the
pro-lifers and use these policies to create a wedge between the
religious right/pro-life people in the Republican Party by sayin that
the Republicans have let down a sizable portion of their voters and
that these voters should spin off and create their own party with their
own candidate :-)
Ah, the power of wedge politics, and how to ***** up a government and
party in a short space of time; its a hard task, but it can be *VERY*
rewarding if one is persistant :-)
Create a wedge between the religious right and Republicans and watch
that party split apart faster than the legs on a $50 hooker ;-)
Great Observation. Though my experience with $50 hookers is limited;
I prefer the ones who are free and let me stay all night.
Had a friend at school whose mother ran the local brothel, you'd be
surprised what $50 bought you back in 1997.
Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Hope" |
|
| Title: PROOF THAT LIBERALS REALLY HATE AMERICA ==> Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
12 Nov 2004 02:24:33 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:10:09 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/bush.cabinet/index.html
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
12 Nov 2004 03:45:55 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:10:09 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
Of course we do. But in the case of abortion, all people of God oppose it.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Snubs The Pro-Life |
12 Nov 2004 09:25:23 PM |
|
|
In article <hnbap053fjvc73rej1vc30q91ol9dbj6u1@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 20:10:09 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com> wrote:
An anti-abortion group Thursday accused President Bush of ignoring his
anti-abortion principles in nominating White House counsel Alberto
Gonzales for the post of attorney general.
While on the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales had the nerve to say "...it
is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state
without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."
Pro-lifers don't understand this line of thinking.
Of course we do. But in the case of abortion, all people of God oppose it.
Why is that?
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
